787 Family Latest Information Release

widebodyphotog · Sun Oct 09, 2005 1:36 am

Rarely have I started a thread on A.net, but I thought the finalizing of the 787 configuration warrants such an endeavor. Here are some excerpts from the latest Boeing Planning Manual augmented by my own cast-down data.

Original Boeing document here:

Boeing 787 Airport Compatibility Brochure

General Arrangements:

787-3

787-8

787-9

Interior Arrangements:

787-3

787-8

787-9

Cargo Holds:

787-3/-8

787-9

Payload Range Capability:

Payload Range Chart

Airplane Characteristics:

787 Family Airplane Characteristics

787 Family Airplane Cast Down Data

This stuff is free people. There are no warranties expressed or implied. Actual mileage may vary...Now talk amongst yourselves.

-widebodyphotog

Glom · Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:46 am

Why would the -3 have more useable fuel than the others when it has less than half the range?

solnabo · Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:56 am

IMHO 787 looks like 767´s w raked wingtip n "rabbit ears" (787-3)

My twocents

Micke//SE

USAF336TFS · Sun Oct 09, 2005 3:07 am

Why aren't the preformance stats there for the GenX engines?

Glom · Sun Oct 09, 2005 3:11 am

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 5):
Why aren't the preformance stats there for the GenX engines?

Presumably because the T1000 is the launch engine.

Quoting BCAInfoSys (Reply 4):
I think this qualfies as a "LOW VALUE POST" which contributes nothing to the thread.

Indeed. The A crowd are certainly squandering any moral authority over all the fugly A380 posts.

A350 · Sun Oct 09, 2005 3:24 am

Thanks for the data!
I looked at the Dash 3 data and compared it with the A300-600 data (according to a.net) and was surprised! The Dash 3 is 11 tons heavier than the bus. However, it is also slightly longer (2.70m) and has a significantly larger wingspan (7m). Maybe this is the chance for Airbus to answer with a new shorthaul variant of the A350 featuring a new wing? Any thoughts? Anyway, I wish them *both* good luck and I'm convinced, they will both be success stories.

A350

DfwRevolution · Sun Oct 09, 2005 3:47 am

>> Maybe this is the chance for Airbus to answer with a new shorthaul variant of the A350 featuring a new wing? Any thoughts?

In my opinion, there would be a few problems

(1) Resources to produce such a variant. It would be very difficult to create a short-haul variant and maintain the current A350 timetable.

(2) Capability of the A350 versus A300. Airbus is moving the A350 weights and long-range cruise ability up from the A330, the opposite direction of a short-haul variant. It may be more productive to modernize the A300-600 rather than "de-rate" an A350.

(3) The construction techniques of the A350 won't allow for the flexible production that Boeing is using to just keep the 787-3 feasable. For practical purposes, a short-haul A350 might as well be a different type.

>> Why would the -3 have more useable fuel than the others when it has less than half the range?

Perhaps Boeing is leaving the fuel tankerage unchanged between the 787-3 and -8. Fuel capacity may be paper derated?

USAF336TFS · Sun Oct 09, 2005 3:48 am

Quoting Glom (Reply 6):
Presumably because the T1000 is the launch engine.

True enough, but I would think that Boeing would publish specs for both engines.

zvezda · Sun Oct 09, 2005 3:51 am

I first was puzzled how the B787-3 can have such reduced range with the same fuel capacity. Then I realized that the OEW plus the fuel weight if the tanks are full exceeds the MTOW. So the useful fuel capacity is much less than the actual capacity.

Boeing Nut · Sun Oct 09, 2005 3:58 am

Quoting Comorin (Reply 3):
Excellent synopsis - encourage you to start all the threads you want!

I second that!

Now I can plan out the seating arrangements for the 787 series in my fantasy fleet!! bigthumbsup

jacobin777 · Sun Oct 09, 2005 3:59 am

what i found interesting was the effiency of the 787-9 vs. the 787-8 until 9000nm (damn those things fly far!!), but it makes sense that the 787-9 will have a larger slope towards the end because its carrying more pax and more cargo..

what I find more intersting is the quick dropoff of the 787-3, but thats to be somewhat expected, given the amount of pax/baggage it will be transporting..however, the dropoff for the 787-3 has a less of a slope than the other 787's, which is once again very interesting..

I guess it will really depend on a plane's mission profile as to what the air carrier will choose.

I think what's more important however is that it will allow the air carrier to choose from three different combinations, as opposed to two with the A350...

I think once we have a chart of the A350 values (courtesy of Widebodyphotog), the comparisons will be interesting to see.

Looking at the data, I find the 787-7 to be the one to dethrone the A330 (i.e-most comparable misson profile of the three aircrafts)

also, it looks like these airplanes are reaching maximum efficiency in terms of their structure, it seems that the only way to get more out of these "conventional" planes are to lower the weight of the plane (which is the whole case Boeing is making with the use of composites) and/or to get better efficiency out of the engines (which General Electric and Rolls Royce are doing)....

just my twocents

zvezda · Sun Oct 09, 2005 4:08 am

There is a typo that Boeing should correct. On page 19, Takeoff Field Length is denominated in feet and kilometers. Should be feet and meters.

flyabunch · Sun Oct 09, 2005 4:09 am

While the rest of you have concentrated on the performance and external dimensions, the first thing my eye was drawn to on all models was the seat widths and pitches...especially coach.

A little extra width would go a long way towards improving passenger comfort. The 787 increases the average coach width from 17" in the narrow bodies to 17.5" in the 777 to 18.5" in the 787. That is a fantastic improvement. It may not seem like much but it will mean a lot...if some airlines don't just use it as an excuse to squeeze in an extra seat by narrowing the seats to 17" and narrowing the aisles too.

Now, if they will just do the same when they do the 737 replacement! Here's hoping!

Mike

DfwRevolution · Sun Oct 09, 2005 4:16 am

Here's a comparison of belly cargo volume:

(LD3) (96x125 pallets) (Bulk volume) (forward/rear)

787-3.8 (16/12) (5/3) (402 ft^3)
787-9 (20/16) (6/5) (402 ft^3)

777-200 (18/14) (6/4) (600 ft^3)

A330-200 (14/12) (4/4) (460 ft^3)
A330-300 (18/14) (11) (460 ft^3)

---

I find it very striking that 787-9 cargo volume, as configured, exceeds both the 772 and the A333. It's obvious Boeing has made cargo a high priority for both variants.

B2707SST · Sun Oct 09, 2005 4:26 am

Great information, as always. Is there any reliable information about the 787-9HGW that Boeing supposedly offered Qantas, or is that nothing more than a rumor? Given that Randy and others downplayed the 787-10 in recent days, I'm guessing it's still in the early study stage.

--B2707SST

kaitak · Sun Oct 09, 2005 4:55 am

It's a pity they didn't publish the two class layout for the 787-9; with most airlines nowadays moving away from three class aircraft and going to premium executive and economy class.

I'd have thought Boeing would have noticed this!

Still, impressive looking configurations. Perhaps they could also have included an all-Y class layout for ANA?

keesje · Sun Oct 09, 2005 5:59 am

Operating Empty weight

A306 : 90k KG
B763 : 90k KG
B783 : 101k KG
B753 : 65k KG

The seat numbers differ of course.

I still think there is room for a single aisle short/medium range 230-280 seater if fuel prices and other operating costs remain high.

A350 · Sun Oct 09, 2005 7:04 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 18):
I still think there is room for a single aisle short/medium range 230-280 seater if fuel prices and other operating costs remain high.

Wow. More window seats thanks to high fuel prices hyper

A350

ikramerica · Sun Oct 09, 2005 7:39 am

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 17):
It's a pity they didn't publish the two class layout for the 787-9; with most airlines nowadays moving away from three class aircraft and going to premium executive and economy class.

It's a rare customer that would configure the 789 in the 2-class domestic type configuration giver (36" pitch in coach), but you will see the 783 that way, and possibly the 788 for airlines that want one plane they could convert to use on both types of routes.

As for a 2-class international carrier like CO, I would like to see Boeing release numbers for a 2-class configuration for both the 788 and 789 using 55"/32" pitch. I would imagine for an airline like CO, we are talking 30J/200Y, but we can't be sure until we see it. Also expect to see CO stick with the 17.9" wide coach seat to increase aisle width (helps with boarding and service), and to save on weight over a heavier 18.5" seat.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 18):
single aisle short/medium range 230-280 seater

I would agree except for the 753 experience. Even with more efficient Door 2 loading, the 753 is a slow turnaround plane due to it's single aisle, and for short range, you'd need a faster turn around, so the 280 is pushing it. I think the "225 seat" market will be the top of the twin (putting real config at about 210) will be the top of the seating range for any future single aisle.

sq212 · Sun Oct 09, 2005 7:58 am

Wideboyphotog

Excellent post. Always appreciate your technical analysis and cast down data chart. Hope you continue to do so. May I suggest another thread by you on technical analysis between 787 vs 350 in the future?

Regards

BlueSky1976 · Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:44 am

Thank you. This is what I've been waiting for. It's lovely to finally see my future favourite aircraft in 3D Smile

DfwRevolution · Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:56 am

>> I would agree except for the 753 experience. Even with more efficient Door 2 loading, the 753 is a slow turnaround plane due to it's single aisle, and for short range, you'd need a faster turn around, so the 280 is pushing it

There are some improvements a manufacture could incorperate to an all-new design that Boeing had to work around in the 757-300.

For example, a 1.5 x wider isle allows a more continuous stream of passengers to load and unload the aircraft. A person can more easily step around another, improving flow without restorting to a full double-isle configuration.

sunrisevalley · Sun Oct 09, 2005 9:04 am

Check some of Widebodies other postings, you will see "stuff' on the A350

kaitak744 · Sun Oct 09, 2005 9:39 am

Wow, thanks for those seating charts. I have been waiting for those for a while. Also, does this mean that the 787-9 measurements are also firmed? After all, they are detailed in Boeing's drawings.

trex8 · Sun Oct 09, 2005 9:58 am

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 17):
It's a pity they didn't publish the two class layout for the 787-9; with most airlines nowadays moving away from three class aircraft and going to premium executive and economy class.

I'd have thought Boeing would have noticed this!

I'm sure they are well aware of it but just as with Airbus and its A350 hype, you need the "correct" number of seats to show that dramatic improved fuel burn per seat compared to the competition or the past!

great job as usual widebodyphotog!

can't wait till I can get on one (pleez, pleez let UA have enough money to buy some!!)

SQ2 · Sun Oct 09, 2005 12:27 pm

787-3 seems like good for asian routes, more passenger, less range.

PyroGX41487 · Sun Oct 09, 2005 12:31 pm

Brilliant post!

I sort of expected the plane to be longer. I can't wait to see this thing in the air!

DAYflyer · Sun Oct 09, 2005 12:52 pm

A 3330.

ikramerica · Sun Oct 09, 2005 3:22 pm

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 29):
A 3330.

???

RIP 340 only. 747Adv knocks out 346. 772Lr beats 345. A350/787 beats up 342/343.

330 has a long life.

aircanada014 · Sun Oct 09, 2005 3:24 pm

Hello all

I'm new to this posting forum but however I've been here many times reading the posts. I really enjoy reading all the posts. I remember in previous post about the seating arrangement for 787's? and now we all know its going to be 2 x 4 x 2. I wonder why they want to use this instead of 2 x 3 x 2?

gigneil · Sun Oct 09, 2005 3:28 pm

Its a wider plane. It could accomodate 2-5-2 even.

N

hoya · Sun Oct 09, 2005 3:39 pm

Whatever happened to Boeing's proposed 3-2-3 seating layout? Does anyone remember that? I think its a good thing they changed that, even though it may be 'copying' their competitor now.

astuteman · Sun Oct 09, 2005 5:51 pm

Thanks once again, Widebody.

I was interested to see the 783 data - we seem to spend a lot more time discussing the 788 + 789 data because of the A350 competition.

I'm interested to see the Trent 1000 sized down to 53 000 lb (it obviously had to be around there..), but it's also interesting that GE have had to do so much work to get the GenX downscaled to 62 000 lb or so for the 747Adv.

I wonder what RR had to do to create the 1053.....

Also the 783 has almost identical MTOW to the A300 - not surprising, but interesting.
I'll be fascinated to see how the step change in efficiency regenerates this particular marketplace.
A

zvezda · Sun Oct 09, 2005 7:17 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 30):
RIP 340 only. 747Adv knocks out 346. 772Lr beats 345. A350/787 beats up 342/343.

I think the B777-300ER kills the A340-600 at least as much as the B747Adv does. Remember, the A340-600 is smaller (cabin floor area) than the B777-300ER. Regardless, the A340 is very close to dead now. With a long order backlog for the A320, do not be surprised to see Airbus introduce a new family (A360 or A370) between the A350 and the WhaleJet before an A320 replacement. I'm thinking 10 or 11 across on a single deck. Watch them target the space between the B787-10 and the B747Adv. A later stretch might exceed the capacity of the B747Adv.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 30):
330 has a long life.

The A350 will kill the A330.

zeke · Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:46 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 35):
The A350 will kill the A330.

Thought Airbus anounced it will use the 330 production line for the 350 ?

zvezda · Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:50 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 36):
Thought Airbus anounced it will use the 330 production line for the 350 ?

Yes, but don't expect to see a lot more A330 orders once the A350 is flying.

jacobin777 · Sun Oct 09, 2005 11:05 pm

Quoting AirCanada014 (Reply 31):
Hello all

I'm new to this posting forum but however I've been here many times reading the posts. I really enjoy reading all the posts. I remember in previous post about the seating arrangement for 787's? and now we all know its going to be 2 x 4 x 2. I wonder why they want to use this instead of 2 x 3 x 2?

welcome to A.net..... bigthumbsup

I think we are calling for the demise of the A330 to soon..its a great plane, and there are many carriers who would benefit from getting it at a cheap(er) price, knowing that its no longer going to be selling like hot potatoes....

I hope to see the A330 fly for a long time......... yes

MyAviation.net photo:

DfwRevolution · Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:07 am

>> Hoya >> Whatever happened to Boeing's proposed 3-2-3 seating layout? Does anyone remember that? I think its a good thing they changed that, even though it may be 'copying' their competitor now.

Hoya, the 3x2x3 configuration is still an option and depends on the order of the customer. Boeing simply chose the 2x4x2 configuration for this seating chart. Just as the 777 can be equipped with either 3x3x3 or 2x5x2, Boeing usually only shows one or the other.

The 3x2x3 isn't even a bad idea either. At typical load factors, it allows for more personal space than 2x4x2. The aircraft can fill up to 62.5% before any two passengers must sit next to each other in economy, versus 50% for 2x4x2.

phollingsworth · Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:48 am

Quoting Hoya (Reply 33):
Whatever happened to Boeing's proposed 3-2-3 seating layout? Does anyone remember that? I think its a good thing they changed that, even though it may be 'copying' their competitor now.

I guess Boeing is copying Airbus in 2-4-2 like they copied Douglas and Lockheed in the 2-5-2 on the 777. Boeing was never particularly adverse or proverse to any particular layout or cabin diameter, in every case it has been based upon a set of customer preference and manufacturing cost. The 2-3-2 of the 767 was dictated by the demands of the launch customers to maximize the efficiency of the aircraft (designed during the 1970s fuel crisis). This dictated minimizing wetted and frontal area. The trade-off was the loss of cargo efficiency when using LD3s. The 777 was designed during the days of relatively lower fuel prices, this allowed the extra wide, circular fuselage (manufacturing and the desire to have near vertical sidewalls). The 787 is also a product of its times. It rectifies many of the shortcomings with the compromise that the 767 represented; however, it is being designed with efficiency being the primary driver. Boeing likes to show a fuel burn per trip vs. a fuel burn per seat chart (they showed it about half a dozen times at last week's SAE AeroTech Congress. The Sonic Cruiser would have been in the area where current twins reside. The 787 offers a significant improvement over the SoA.

Slcpilot · Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:53 am

Initially the number of lavs looked small, what is the normal ratio for a long ranged aircraft? Here they are for the 787..

787-3 296y/4Lavs = 76 pax/lav (Wow!)
787-8 170y/5Lavs = 34 pax/lav
787-9 198y/5Lavs = 39.6 pax/lav

SLCPilot

Boeing7E7 · Mon Oct 10, 2005 1:02 am

Quoting SLCPilot (Reply 41):
787-3 296y/4Lavs = 76 pax/lav (Wow!)

Yeah.. A more realistic capacity extends F seat pitch and puts in a couple more lavs and a galley at the L2 and mid cabin lavs at L3. Think more 250 in 2+4+2 in coach vs. 296, or move to a 3+3+3 in coach to get back closer to the 296.

QFA001 · Tue Oct 11, 2005 1:43 pm

Quoting SLCPilot (Reply 39):
787-3 296y/4Lavs = 76 pax/lav (Wow!)

There's six toilets, not four. Two forward, two mid-deck, two rearward.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 40):
Yeah.. A more realistic capacity extends F seat pitch and puts in a couple more lavs and a galley at the L2 and mid cabin lavs at L3. Think more 250 in 2+4+2 in coach vs. 296, or move to a 3+3+3 in coach to get back closer to the 296.

I tried to tell you that the 296-seat generic configuration was 2-4-2. I don't know why you didn't listen, but Boeing finally came to my party.

If you add a mid-deck galley, you lose 12 seats. If you make F-pitch 46-in, you lose 8 Y-seats. That would leave you with 276 seats, not about 250 (although you had presumed that two extra toilets needed to be added, they weren't going to take up 26 seats!). Also, if you reduced Y-pitch to 30-in from 32-in, you can add 16 seats back into the equation. That, my friend, gives you 292 seats and there isn't a hint of 3-3-3 amongst it. I even told you about an airline configuration that had 296 seats with 2-4-2 (but in a different configuration to the Boeing configuration).

Now, I hope you can finally see that 3-3-3 isn't required for 296 seats. Infact, as I told you, if you do 3-3-3 with standard seat pitches, you can get to well over 300 seats on the -3.

airplane

QFA001

Boeing7E7 · Tue Oct 11, 2005 10:21 pm

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 41):
I tried to tell you that the 296-seat generic configuration was 2-4-2. I don't know why you didn't listen, but Boeing finally came to my party.

With what ammenities to accomodate that many people?

The party you suggest isn't worth attending.

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 41):
Now, I hope you can finally see that 3-3-3 isn't required for 296 seats. Infact, as I told you, if you do 3-3-3 with standard seat pitches, you can get to well over 300 seats on the -3.

Yeah, well, NWA and CO and a couple of other unmentioned carriers obviously have higher standards (240 seats) and expectations (ammenities and comfort) in configuring the aircraft, International -8's and Domestic -3's. -8's that will carry 240 and -3's that will carry 258 in 2-4-2 and 280 in 3-3-3.

[Edited 2005-10-11 15:30:50]

NYC777 · Tue Oct 11, 2005 10:39 pm

Quoting Solnabo (Reply 2):
IMHO 787 looks like 767´s w raked wingtip n "rabbit ears" (787-3)

Funny how Widebodyphotog starts an excellent thought provoking thread and all you need is Solnabo to make stupid comments. Dude, buy yourself a life if you have nothing of value to add here.

drerx7 · Tue Oct 11, 2005 10:44 pm

Continental only order the -8s correct? What variants did NW order again?

Boeing7E7 · Tue Oct 11, 2005 10:45 pm

Quoting Drerx7 (Reply 44):
What variants did NW order again?

Both are -8's at this point....In a "normal" environment free of BK's, domestic network carriers typically deal with 5 year horizons on orders, now it's more like 7...

[Edited 2005-10-11 15:48:31]

JakeOrion · Tue Oct 11, 2005 10:51 pm

Is it me or does the –3 and –8 variants look too short? The –9 looks better IMHO. Wonder how long the –10 variant will look (assuming they build it.)

Lemurs · Wed Oct 12, 2005 12:22 am

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 42):
Yeah, well, NWA and CO and a couple of other unmentioned carriers obviously have higher standards (240 seats) and expectations (ammenities and comfort) in configuring the aircraft, International -8's and Domestic -3's. -8's that will carry 240 and -3's that will carry 258 in 2-4-2 and 280 in 3-3-3.

Do you have a specific place you're getting your -3 info? It seems to me the ammenities argument is premature for a lot of the interested -3 carriers, neither of which will be NW or CO. Flying mainline routes around Japan, I doubt they care much about serious amenities as much as packing as many people onto those low-yield routes as possible.

Boeing7E7 · Wed Oct 12, 2005 12:37 am

Quoting Lemurs (Reply 47):
Flying mainline routes around Japan, I doubt they care much about serious amenities as much as packing as many people onto those low-yield routes as possible.

To carry that many pax, you have a huge range penalty. So with the exception of short hops in the Pacific Rim, the -3 is useless with 300 pax particularly in the US domestic market due to the range penalty associated with carrying that many pax. Anything over 260 and you lose 1,000 miles range an up to 2,000 miles.

Lemurs · Wed Oct 12, 2005 1:05 am

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 48):
To carry that many pax, you have a huge range penalty. So with the exception of short hops in the Pacific Rim, the -3 is useless with 300 pax particularly in the US domestic market due to the range penalty associated with carrying that many pax. Anything over 260 and you lose 1,000 miles range an up to 2,000 miles.

Now you're really losing me. The chart shows pretty clearly that the 3,500nm range Boeing quotes is for 296 pax load on the -3. What domestic route needs > 3,500nm?

Also, what airline is in the market for a new high-density widebody for domestic ops? Even the legacies have slowly but surely been moving away from this mode of operation to more frequent narrowbody flights.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net